I have a West Wight Potter 14 but need a lighter boat, one I can get back in the water easier when the reservoir we sail in goes down and strands the boat. The Chrysler Pirateer and AMF Puffer are both sit in - not sit on. We," the little woman" and I, are both in our early 60s and don't want to hike out if we don't have to. Both boats have similiar #s (length, sail area, beam, draft) except weight, Pirateer 300, Puffer 165. Does the 300#s make the Pirateer inherently more stable. We are new to sailing and need all the little helps we can get.

I have a West Wight Potter 14 but need a lighter boat, one I can get back in the water easier when the reservoir we sail in goes down and strands the boat. The Chrysler Pirateer and AMF Puffer are both sit in - not sit on. We," the little woman" and I, are both in our early 60s and don't want to hike out if we don't have to. Both boats have similiar #s (length, sail area, beam, draft) except weight, Pirateer 300, Puffer 165. Does the 300#s make the Pirateer inherently more stable. We are new to sailing and need all the little helps we can get.

Thank you.

Bob

I try to stay out of the business of recommending one boat over another, and I have never sailed any one of these. You should remember, that most likely, both the Puffer and the Pirateer will probably a bit more 'tippy', than the Potter. That being said, I do have a bias towards boats designed by Macalpine-Downie and Gibbs, one of the most innovative design teams ever, and one of the most under rated. So I could say, with relative certainty, the Pirateer performs well under sail. The extra weight, in itself, would not make it any more stable. If at all possible, I would 'try before you buy'.

Thank you for your response. I was trying to do my due diligence and read about Maclapine-Downie & Gibbs and apparantly they had many successes. Maclapine-Downie started with a splash; being very succesful even on his first couple of designs. I just got back from looking at the Pirateer. I have been in various tradework my whold life but never did have anything to do with fiberglass. I think "crazing" is where you see lines under the top finish. Well, this boat had crazing on the bottom but it was through the top coat and I could feel the crazing in the cracked finish coat. The gentleman has owned her for 28 years and said there have never been any problems, and he did not even know they were there. I believe him but could these cracks haunt me in the future?

I think "crazing" is where you see lines under the top finish. Well, this boat had crazing on the bottom but it was through the top coat and I could feel the crazing in the cracked finish coat. The gentleman has owned her for 28 years and said there have never been any problems, and he did not even know they were there. I believe him but could these cracks haunt me in the future?

Thank you.

Bob

Normally, no. But I don't feel comforatable in adviceing you about this. This is a boat that was made by Chrysler Corp. 28 years ago. If you bought a Chrysler car that was 28 years old, wouldn't you have a machanic, that you had faith in, check it out?

Hi,Very good analogy. This is the second boat that I have looked at that has had the same cracks so I guess I'm going to have to learn about fiberglass. I am going to see a friend of mine Tues that has a body shop. He does excellent metal work but I am not sure how much he knows about fiberglass. We are new to sailing and can not think of anyone right off that knows about boats but are going to ask around. The boat is not very expensive but we do not have money to throw away. Thanks again for your insightful responses.Bob